Valid Use of Birth Control?

[Ron_Conte]

I would like to integrate the following statement with HV 15
Can anyone help? Thank you, VC

That is my statement that you wish to integrate with HV 15. Here is my answer:
catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm#11

VS, EV, and the CCC teach that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances. So any interpretation of HV 15 that contradicts this teaching must be an incorrect interpretation.

 

[Bookcat]

…

 

[Bookcat]

My articles on: the Most Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary, Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium
Q & A on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics
My translation of the Bible: CPDV

Readers please note:

These web pages are **not **recommended sources for Catholic sexual ethics…other areas too are of private opinion or are problematic or incorrect from a theological or canonical view.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The explanation I found as a basis for integrating this statement:

when the contraceptive pill is used by a woman who is sexually active, the pill deprives the sexual acts of the procreative meaning, and so its use is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

with HV 15,
Humane vitae:

. .the Chruch does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means nevessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a forseeable impediment to procreation should result therefrom – provided such impediment is not directly intended. . .

is that HV 15 “cannot be applied to contraception because the use of contraception is intrinsically evil.”

Is this accurate?

Does “use of contraception” here mean when a contraceptive pill is used for any reason by a woman who is sexually active or does it mean when a contraceptive pill is used and “specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (in the language of HV 14)?

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

Does “use of contraception” here mean when a contraceptive pill is used for any reason by a woman who is sexually active or does it mean when a contraceptive pill is used and “specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (in the language of HV 14)?

The reason (purpose) for which the act was chosen is in the font called ‘intention’.
Intrinsically evil acts are immoral due to their moral object.

The phrase ‘specifically intended to prevent procreation’ refers to an act which is inherently ordered toward preventing procreation. Such intrinsically evil acts are always intentionally chosen, but are also always independent of the actual intention of the person who chooses the act.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The phrase ‘specifically intended to prevent procreation’ refers to an act which is inherently ordered toward preventing procreation. Such intrinsically evil acts are always intentionally chosen, but are also always independent of the actual intention of the person who chooses the act.

Can the above be restated as:
taking a pill which causes temporary sterility is an act which is inherently ordered toward preventing procreation.
or is something missing in the above restatement?

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

Can the above be restated as:taking a pill which causes temporary sterility is an act which is inherently ordered toward preventing procreation.
or is something missing in the above restatement?

VC

No, I don’t agree with that phrasing, because an unmarried woman (who is not sexually active) might take the same pill, with the same temporary sterility, without the taking of the pill being intrinsically evil.

Intrinsically evil acts are always inherently directed at a proximate end, an end in terms of morality, which is deprived of some good required by the love of God, neighbor, self (i.e. required by the moral law). Evil is a deprivation of good. Moral evil is a deprivation of a good required by the moral law. An evil moral object is a deprivation of a good required by the moral law toward which the intentionally chosen act is inherently ordered.

Taking the pill and engaging in sexual relations is the same type of act, with the same moral object, as any woman who takes the contraceptive pill and engages in sexual relations. It is the same concrete act, the same kind of behavior, and therefore, the moral object is the same, and the intention does not justify the act.

1. A doctrine which dissociates the moral act from the bodily dimensions of its exercise is contrary to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition. Such a doctrine revives, in new forms, certain ancient errors which have always been opposed by the Church, inasmuch as they reduce the human person to a “spiritual” and purely formal freedom. This reduction misunderstands the moral meaning of the body and of kinds of behaviour involving it (cf. 1 Cor 6:19). Saint Paul declares that “the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers” are excluded from the Kingdom of God (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). This condemnation — repeated by the Council of Trent"88 — lists as “mortal sins” or “immoral practices” certain specific kinds of behaviour the wilful acceptance of which prevents believers from sharing in the inheritance promised to them. In fact, body and soul are inseparable: in the person, in the willing agent and in the deliberate act, they stand or fall together. (Veritatis Splendor)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

an unmarried woman (who is not sexually active) might take the same pill, with the same temporary sterility, without the taking of the pill being intrinsically evil.

Would this mean then that one could say that
taking a pill which causes temporary sterility and subsequently engaging in intercourse is an act which is inherently ordered towards preventing conception
or would this not always be the case?

Also, if a woman has taken a pill which causes temporary sterility, and without the intention to engage in subsequent intercourse, later does in fact engage in subsequent intercourse while still temporarily sterile is that act of intercourse inherently ordered towards preventing conception?

VC

 

[LittleDeb]

The explanation I found as a basis for integrating this statement: with HV 15,is that HV 15 “cannot be applied to contraception because the use of contraception is intrinsically evil.”

Is this accurate?

Does “use of contraception” here mean when a contraceptive pill is used for any reason by a woman who is sexually active or does it mean when a contraceptive pill is used and “specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (in the language of HV 14)?

VC

HV is almost entirely about being free from contraception. Everything in it is speaking against contraception. HV 15 is explicitly saying that sterility that is not *intended *is not contraception.

I have been able to identify one phrasing that explains why the argument being presented here is swaying. It is also why it is incorrect. The Church is correct and chooses her words carefully.

When the Church uses the term ‘procreation’ she is referring to *all *marriage acts, objectively. An “impediment to procreation” is describing the subjective. ALL marital acts are objectively procreative until rendered objectively contraceptive. An act can be objectively procreative while being subjectively infertile. Procreation means: “ordered towards creation.” A rape resulting in pregnancy is a clear example of non-procreative act, objectively, (sexual penetration by force) which resulted in a subjective procreative result. (a baby.)

What matters to the Church is that the act is objectively procreative, NOT if it is subjectively procreative. A pregnant woman has relations that *subjectively *are not “ordered towards creation.” In other words she cannot make a baby while already pregnant. The act itself is still objectively procreative. It is subjectively infertile.

It was argued by St. Augustus that expecting couples should not engage in the marital act. He believed that since it was subjectively infertile that only lust could be driving the act. He believed an act needed to be fertile to be a procreative act. The Church rejected his premise and continues to do so as illustrated in HV, by the support of procreative actions during the infertile phases.

If a couple cannot engage in relations because they are unintentionally infertile due to pregnancy, it would follow that a couple who is unintentionally infertile due to medication, would not be able to either.

But the opposite is true. The couple who has made themselves infertile due to pregnancy is still objectively procreative because that is their intention. The couple that is medically infertile is still procreative because that is their intention.

Either Mr Conte’s theory is incorrect or the expecting couple is sinning.

The error is in confusing the objective and the subjective definitions of procreation. When there is confusion separate terms can be helpful. Procreative looks at the objective, and reproductive addresses the subjective. It has been successfully argued that contraceptive sex is not actually a marital act and is instead mutual masturbation. The contraceptive act that became subjectively procreative because the contraception failed, is still a contraceptive act. The Church’s apologetics are very reasonable and consistent.

 

[Bookcat]

1. The “pill” is per se a particular chemical compound
2. Such a compound can be used for more than one reason

(just a knife can be used to kill or heal)

1. To use such a compound as a contraceptive is a grave matter for mortal sin.
2. To use such a compound for a moral treatment of a disorder is possibly good.
3. One must look to the effects of course of such use…and it seems there can be some very bad ones. So it seems to me that I would advise other avenues of treatment and use of this compound as last resort…(see paulvi institute for alternatives)
4. A chaste single person is one thing…they have only to consider the health effects to themselves…
5. But a married person using such a compound raises other questions. In particular the question of the possibility of such a compound causing an unintended abortion.

Certainly this is an important question particularly in light of that the Vatican PCF the Vad. for Confessors noted:

“Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect.”

With the foot note of:

“From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 74).

This was said in reference to a couple in which one spouse was using contraception…so it would also certainly go for a couple who is using a compound that could have an abortive side effect…for non contraceptive reasons…(thus not contracepting)

So it is an important part of the question…

So while such a compound may be used potentially by a non sexually active person…as one can see from the Document Humanae Vitae…

A person who is sexually active will be faced with this other question (Which I do not think had seen the light of day at the time of HV) …

 

[budgie2]

I have a friend who is considering joining The Church, but one of the major blocks for her is birth control. She told me before she was put on it, her cramps were so bad that she would sometimes pass out or throw up. Her doctor also warned her about something like endometriosis or something where bits of tissue could break off inside because of cramps. She asked me if it would be allowable for her to use birth control (the pill) just for medicinal purposes; relieving her cramps (she isn’t sexually active and she isn’t married). I said the pill was probably just masking the symptoms (because it seems that’s all the pill does) and that she aught to consult her doctor about treating the cause, but that I thought if there was no other way to help the cramps then this might be a valid use of birth control.

Then she asked me if she ever did get married, but still used the pill for these medicinal purposes, would that be ok. I said that the contraceptive results would be an unintended side effect, so she’d probably be fine. Then she asked “what if I was glad that it could be a simple way to space children?” and I said that might be getting into rockier waters.

My main questions are A) How have I done so far? Do my answers sound right? and B) Has anyone else delt with extreme cramping and not using the pill to alleviate it?

Thanks!

The pill is one of the worst forms of birth control for a Catholic and is an anabolic steroid which can cause abortion. NFP, FAM, barrier methods - condom, cap and diaphragm and male sterilisation are more ethical than birth control drugs and IUDs. She might be addicted currently and find it difficult to get off the drug. If she has cramps she would be better taking a paracetamol or pain killer like Ibuprofen or Feminax rather than the pill. Nobody should take the pill for cramps and pains when there are other pain relief medicines which are not birth control.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If a couple cannot engage in relations because they are unintentionally infertile due to pregnancy, it would follow that a couple who is unintentionally infertile due to medication, would not be able to either.

But the opposite is true. The couple who has made themselves infertile due to pregnancy is still objectively procreative because that is their intention. The couple that is medically infertile is still procreative because that is their intention.

That is interesting LittleDeb.

Is it correct to say that one concept put forth on this thread is that the woman who chooses to take a pill for medicinal reasons, and not the contraceptive effect, and who then engages in intercourse has nevertheless chosen to contracept because the act of taking the pill in such a case is a contraceptive act?

Am I correct to say that you view your response as a counter to that concept, since a woman who chooses to get pregnant and who doesn’t so choose it for the contraceptive effect of pregnancy, and who then engages in intercourse cannot be then said to have chosen to contracept because choosing to get pregnant in such a case is not a contraceptive act?

Would the proponent of the first concept somehow have to distinguish the two cases in order meet your response?

VC

 

[newbetx]

An oldie but a goodie subject. However, the thread has now been “resurrected,” twice!

 

[LittleDeb]

That is interesting LittleDeb.

Is it correct to say that one concept put forth on this thread is that the woman who chooses to take a pill for medicinal reasons, and not the contraceptive effect, and who then engages in intercourse has nevertheless chosen to contracept because the act of taking the pill in such a case is a contraceptive act?

Am I correct to say that you view your response as a counter to that concept, since a woman who chooses to get pregnant and who doesn’t so choose it for the contraceptive effect of pregnancy, and who then engages in intercourse cannot be then said to have chosen to contracept because choosing to get pregnant in such a case is not a contraceptive act?

Would the proponent of the first concept somehow have to distinguish the two cases in order meet your response?

VC

If I am reading you correctly, yes. The best argument a proponent of the first concept could say is that infertility is *natural *in the case of pregnancy and *unnatural *in the second case. My answer would be that it is the disease, in the first place, that is unnatural. The treatment has an unwanted side effect.

Newbetx, I was hoping you’d pop in!! Sometimes resurrected threads are asking the question that needs to be asked, but was never fully answered. But the jury is still out if this thread is a resurrection or a zombie.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If I am reading you correctly, yes. The best argument a proponent of the first concept could say is that infertility is *natural *in the case of pregnancy and *unnatural *in the second case. My answer would be that it is the disease, in the first place, that is unnatural. The treatment has an unwanted side effect.

Yes, I think you read my question correctly and gave an answer to what I was asking… Thank you LittleDeb.

I suppose the same analysis would hold for other choices that had a side-effect which amounted to temporary sterility (i.e. lack of an appreciable ability to conceive)? I am thinking of say, putting oneself into a high-stress situation (like caring for a dying parent), being very active (such as training for the Olympics), or taking other medications other than “the pill”, would that be so?

I’m not a doctor, so I don’t know the medical reality of how those affect fertility but my understanding is that they can.

The first two examples I gave seem natural, along the same lines as choosing to get pregnant, would we say so?

Would a proponent of the view that a woman may not take a pill which causes temporary sterility and engage in intercourse have to address these other examples as well, do you think?

VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

I suppose the same analysis would hold for other choices that had a side-effect which amounted to temporary sterility (i.e. lack of an appreciable ability to conceive)? I am thinking of say, putting oneself into a high-stress situation (like caring for a dying parent), being very active (such as training for the Olympics), or taking other medications other than “the pill”, would that be so?

I’m not a doctor, so I don’t know the medical reality of how those affect fertility but my understanding is that they can.

The first two examples I gave seem natural, along the same lines as choosing to get pregnant, would we say so?

Would a proponent of the view that a woman may not take a pill which causes temporary sterility and engage in intercourse have to address these other examples as well, do you think?

VC

Your examples, questions, reasoning, and terminology completely ignore the definitive teaching of the Church on intrinsic evil, moral object, and the fonts (sources) of morality.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

examples, questions, reasoning, and terminology completely ignore the definitive teaching of the Church on intrinsic evil, moral object, and the fonts (sources) of morality.

I am not aware of how examples, questions, reasoning or terminology can completely ignore definitive teaching of the Church (or any teaching of the Church? or any teaching of anybody on this thread?) when I’ve drawn no conclusions in this thread.

Can anyone show me what the above refers to?

May I ask for an explanation regarding this accusation?

VC

 

[ryecroft]

For someone that is in a situation like I am, I know and have been told multiple time by Priests and even one Bishop that my use of birth control is valid and not illicit.
1-I began taking the “pill” long before I was sexually active- 2 years after I began having a period, we found that after many tests the only safe, uninvasive way to deal with the serious bleeding and cramps I was having was to use this method. And believe me, as much as I hated certain effects it was nice not to bleed so much that I could chance passing out or getting embarrassed leaving a bloody mark on the chair at school or have to get a transfusion.
2-Before getting married, many years later, (and after many more tests), I did seek out opinions from my priest and was even led to look at the case of double effect, which applies to my situation. Just because I got married did not mean I was going to go off the pill. Although I did try NFP for some time and wound up having some fun trips to get transfusions as well as following it to the letter and getting pregnant. After trying two versions of NFP it was obvious that I should go back to what was working. Yes, I have even sought out Catholic doctors and even a pro NFP doctor. Since I’m not willing to have a hysterectomy, (the way they could cease the bleeding) I am back on the pill for my own safety. If the doctors can try using some other medicines (as I’m willing to try some again) and I can keep from having to go to hospital or passing out then they might give us the o.k. to try again to conceive with success. But again, I have the o.k. of Priests (even talked to a couple of other ones after I came on here and was told that my Priest was wrong)- and even was told on here by Fr. Serpa that double effect in cases such as mine made it allowable for me to use the pill regardless of it was an abortifacient. And you can look up his response on here and see it.
I saw some responses from certain people on here who argue the same diatribe over and over that they’re right and the priest’s are wrong and I suggest some of you do what I did if you get tired of hearing them and decide to ignore their responses (i’ll be nice and not name any names - as I don’t want to be confrontational) (although when someone quotes this person it will still show up)-
God Bless
Rye

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are three fonts of morality:

1. intention
2. moral object
3. consequences

The use of abortifacient contraceptives while sexually active is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral because it is both the sin of contraception and the sin of direct abortion. Both contraception and abortion have an evil moral object (in the second font) which is gravely disordered, causing this use to be an objective mortal sin.

The principle of double effect cannot justify an act that is intrinsically evil.
ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81rinciple-of-double-effect&Itemid=171

But even under the third font, the use of abortifacient contraceptives while sexually active has the grave consequences not only of preventing the primary good of marriage, children, but also of killing innocent prenatal children. A woman who uses abortifacient contraceptives while sexually active for many years has probably had several early abortions. The deaths of these innocent prenatal children gravely outweighs the good that results in medical benefits from the use of abortifacient contraceptives, causing this use to be an objective mortal sin.

The principle of double effect also does not justify an act if the bad consequences outweigh the good.

The third font of morality causes an act to be a sin if the reasonably anticipated bad consequences morally outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences, and to be a mortal sin if the bad outweighs the good to a grave extent. Therefore, even if we ignore the moral object of the use of abortifacient contraceptives, the third font of consequences also makes this use gravely immoral.

However, obtaining a hysterectomy to treat a severe illness would not be immoral, and does not have the grave consequence of repeatedly causing one abortion after another.

 

[ThomasToo]

…However, obtaining a hysterectomy to treat a severe illness would not be immoral, and does not have the grave consequence of repeatedly causing one abortion after another.

So you’re really saying it’s better to have someone cut out her uterus than to take a pill every morning?